Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 05:00, 29 March 2010 (→User:Jack Merridew reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: ): +moar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:86.178.142.233 reported by User:The C of E (Result: Warned)

Page: Emirates Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.178.142.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

The problem with this user is that this IP seems to have a problem with a statement in the article however he has reverted 3 times and may need a warning to prevent him going over the 3RR The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned Please update or re-report if there is any further trouble. - Vianello (Talk) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nutriveg reported by User:Jack Merridew (Result: Appears resolved)

Page: Vitamin D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 12:56, 25 March 2010:
• 18:55, 25 March 2010:
• 19:02, 25 March 2010:
• 19:15, 25 March 2010:
• 19:30, 25 March 2010:

Warning re 3RR is at: User talk:Nutriveg#WP:3RR

Discussion is at Talk:Vitamin D#consensus on cite pmid + cite doi vs. cite journal and the next section, too

NV's issue seems to be a preference to not use standard citation templates and to fight with Citation bot. Multiple other editors have undone his reverts. And, most important, the version he's reverting to breaks the page because of excessive template transclusion.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg has broken 3RR and is warring against a bunch of people. On his talk page I've proposed that he should agree to a 1RR for 30 days in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Pseudo edit conflict) I was thinking voluntarily refraining from related edits until that discussion winds down, but EdJohnston's solution looks good. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I forgot about this report. It seems Nutriveg sees the light at this point; His last edit to the talk page states "I'm likely following the wrong path." Anyway, less reverting would be best. I do hope he sees the template expansion issue. I'm hoping for understanding, not a block. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• That issue was resolved long ago in the article talk page. Thanks for your attention.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - Both parties think this is resolved. Closing the 3RR complaint with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Peterm4589 reported by Mlpearc MESSAGE (Result: Warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

California Jam II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Peterm4589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

• Diff of warning: here

—Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

I need someone to look into this for me.It feels like it's going to go places I don't want to be, it has to do with these people showing up at California Jam II. I keep undoing the edit and stating that some kind of cite is needed, one, for the fact they showed up on a greyhound bus, and second who are these people ? I've never heard of them. The editorUser talk:Peterm4589 did try to cite something once (today) but it was garbeled. Anyway I keep undoing thier edits, they keep puting them back. Please check the page history. Thanks

P.S. Below is the edit in question.

• • Peter Marchesi,Arby Girard and Bob Millard were also in attendance via a Greyhound Bus from Boston.
• Result - I warned the editor that they may be blocked if they continue. It is best if you give the person a {{uw-3rr}} warning yourself before bringing a complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thank you, I know I should of got more info before comming here. I built my statement in my sanbox without knowing the format here, I was caught off guard. But thanks for your help I'll be more perpared next time Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:Lanternix (Result: both blocked)

Page: Mahmoud Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert: (please note that this revert was done after the reported user was made aware of the current 3RR violation report).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

BLP exemption. In fact the reporting user should be blocked for repeatedly pushing in unreliable sources into a BLP and removing information from the only reliable source discussing the material. I'll also note that the editor who initially added the information agreed with the way I modified the material (see here) nableezy - 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is your problem that the name of the website has the word Jewish in it? Just asking. --Geewhiz (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, unlike you I dont have a history of using a racist propaganda site so I dont know why you would ask that. And my beef is with using WND in a BLP. And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned? nableezy - 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy: Some of these reverts do fall under the BLP exception, including (for the reason given in the edit summary). But in most, such as , the change that is being edit warred over consists in removing an unreliable source (which is fine), adding a presumably reliable source (which is also fine) and adding new text (which is not). Instead, the reverts should only have removed the problematic material. To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. That disagreement is not covered by the BLP exception. In response, in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Nableezy is blocked for 48 hours and made subject to a one revert per page per day restriction with respect to all pages or content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the next three months. Obvious vandalism and BLP violations are excepted from this restriction.  Sandstein  14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix: Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred in violation of WP:BLP to include unreliably sourced material in a BLP (e.g., ). In response, he is blocked for 72 hours and warned about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions.  Sandstein  14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and another one. Gilabrand, signing as "Geewhiz": The above comment () violates your topic ban. In response, you are blocked for two weeks (escalating from one week for your last infringement), and in addition, the three months topic ban is reset to begin anew today.  Sandstein  14:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Protected)

Page: Reincarnation research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The diffs are complex. Here is the story. I originally posted a report at AN/I, but the admin who read the report there was unwilling to act on it because he isn't familiar with blocking users for edit-warring, and he asked me to report ScienceApologist here. The report at AN/I also has many other combative edits of his that are not edit-warring but I would still like an admin to look at that and give some sanctions. Here is a condensed version of that report:

A month ago, ScienceApologist nominated this article for deletion. The result was keep. Since then numerous well-discussed changes were made, especially in the last few days.

1st revert: Today ScienceApologist showed up and reverted some of these changes (version reverted to here, my changes to it were discussed here but ignored until many hours later. ScienceApologist notes: This is not a revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In this same string of consecutive edits, he restored material to the introduction that I had removed (the use of the word "pseudoscience"), and carefully explained (in the “Described as pseudoscience” section of the talk page). ScienceApologist notes: The claimed "edit war" here is the inclusion of a single word: "pseudoscience". `ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He furthermore undid the addition of a new section break that had been added by User:Sacca here. How can this be said to be edit warring? I see no objection to this at all in the talkpage to this cosmetic work. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

These are consecutive.

2nd revert: undid previous edit. Note that he hadn't used the talk page at this point (which was full of justifications for the things he was undoing). ScienceApologist notes: The talkpage is full of justifications for the types of edits I was making. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd revert: . This again undoes my changes to the introduction as in the first string of edits, and again removes material that he initially removed in his first string of edits, and which was twice restored. That sentence is "although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this". ScienceApologist notes: An acknowledged partial revert. This is the second and last revert I did. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I told him that this was his third revert in two places and asked him to finish the discussion we were having about a huge chunk of the article he removed against consensus. ScienceApologist notes: it's a bit difficult to take someone who is edit warring with you seriously when they warn you about edit warring. WP:POT and all that. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

4th revert: He then deleted all the content of the article, thus ignoring the result of his unsuccessful AfD, and redirected the article. With this edit, he removed numerous additions I had made to the article, including the second sentence of the introduction ("Most mainstream scientists have ignored or dismissed this work") which used a new source I had found, the other new content I had added specifically to better represent his opinions. He also removed two other large chunks of material I had recently added. ScienceApologist notes: and attempted bold redirect. Didn't stick. Sometimes these things do stick. No one had tried this before, so it's not a revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I noted on the talk page that this was his fourth revert. Silver seren reported him for edit warring soon after. ScienceApologist notes: It is interesting that Silver screen never told me that I was reported, though they did template me. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fifth revert: In his next string of edits he performs a few reverts.

He reverted (version reverted to here) away yet again my "Paul Kurtz believes that deducing" language I had argued for on talk. ScienceApologist notes: these are different versions. Not a revert. Just because you argue for a particular wording on the talk page doesn't mean that no one is allowed to change it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He again removes the next subsection divider that had been added by another user and twice restored. ScienceApologist notes: Seriously? That's what you're upset about? Why didn't you tell me? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He again reverted away the "although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this" language as before. ScienceApologist notes: I moved the sourced sentence to a different part of the article. This sentence is not now and never has been sourced. Is this considered a revert (removing a single sentence?) If so, then that's number three. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This again is in sum his fifth revert. And the time between his first and fifth reverts is about 22.5 hours. I would really prefer it if the responding admin would look at the longer version with more of his disruptive behavior at AN/I.

I hope that he will be blocked for a considerable period. Furthermore the fact that he cannot respect the results of an AfD shows that he should be banned from this article for a considerably longer time. Mitsube (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that ScienceApologist has been edit-warring, and I've asked him to accept a 1RR/day restriction on this article for 30 days. If he agrees I think this report could be closed with no additional admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

With his long record of disruptive editing and edit-warring, and 5 reverts in 23 hours, doesn't he deserve a long block? Ignoring the result of the AfD alone deserves a block. And his rudeness toward me that I chronicled on the other report deserves a block too. Mitsube (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventive, not a form of punishment, so the question of whether or not someone "deserves" a block is usually not germane. The rudeness to which you refer was hardly egregious, though if ScienceApologist agrees to a 1RR restriction but then problems continue I would encourage you to bring it to ANI. If the 1RR solves the problems then there's nothing to worry about. Also this report somewhat duplicates a report above. Really it should not have been refiled (I don't know why it was since on ANI I suggested adding to the other one) but in any case they should be closed together. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose placing only SA on 1rr. That's just presenting Mitsube with the ability to brute-force "win" his content dispute. Hipocrite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and respond to my question for you on the talk page. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your passive-aggressive question in the appropriate location. Hipocrite (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll let this one slide. Mitsube (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, consecutive edits count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. Often when articles are being edited heavily it makes the history easier to read if edits are broken up into logical chunks. You are treading on very thin ice with respect to the WP:VALID section of the NPOV policy. Please consider this next time you decide to incite an edit war and attempt to use this board to further your interests in a content dispute. As an uninvolved but WP:INVOLVED editor I would recommend locking the article for a few days - let the sources play out and calmer voices speak without Mitsube's aggressive disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2/0, there were five nonconsecutive reverts, some of which consists of a string of edits. In my report, I counted consecutive reverts as one. Please read the report thoroughly before using such dramatic language as "you are treading on very thin ice". About your other accusation, I have displayed only a desire for consensus and amity as the longer report shows. I am glad that you are recusing yourself. That is the honest thing to do. Mitsube (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is now stale anyway, so moot, but a large part of the problem is Mitsube trying to skew content towards a WP:FRINGE view of the topic. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been just watching this article from afar except for one edit I made at the talk page. This is a request for User:Mitsube to refactor a comment made about User:Verbal forgetting to sign in and editing as an IP. I found what was said to breach WP:Civil and WP:NPA. The user didn't see it and asked me about it but I chose not to continue the discussion and to let it pass. Then I found the AN/I discussion leading to here and took note that another accusation of socking was made at User:ScienceApologist here asking this user 'Are you sharing this account with someone else?" I think that Mitsube is editing tendentiously and in the extreme. Other editors are also reverting this editor's edits. I think that this all goes a lot further than just an edit war or 3r since the article is in need of balance. The personal attacks though need to stop as does the tendentious editing. As for SA, he is using the talk page during all of this and explaining his edits. That Mitsube doesn't agree with them, that is the issue here. This is a content dispute and maybe 2/0 is correct, that protection is the best way to handle this at this time. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that protection is the best way to go. Though I would like to note that Mitsube also explained his/her edits on the talk page, as can be seen by the copious amounts of topics started by him on there. He has always listened to other arguments and put forth evidence for his viewpoint, while those on the other side rarely put forth evidence for theirs. Silverseren 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have annotated Mitsube's ridiculous diatribe with my comments above. Edit warring? Yes. Was I the only one participating? No. I will abide by 1RR if the other side does too. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ridiculous diatribe" sounds close to a personal attack to me. Please be civil in this discussion. Silverseren 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have finished my detailed count of the reverts by all parties, in the period beginning 23:00 on 24 March, and I've added the results at User talk:ScienceApologist#Edit warring at Reincarnation research. SA is the only editor to reach four reverts, and he's the only one I'm proposing to sanction at this time, unless he accepts a voluntary agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if that's true, SA is not, however, the only editor edit warring, and to sanction only SA seems ill advised to me as it essentially gives an advantage to the "other side" who do not, based on my reading of this situation and some comments above, seem entirely blameless in this affair. Imposing a 1RR on the page for awhile seems a good idea, though I'm not sure that's technically within the purview of a single admin. If the relevant parties could simply agree to that (SA already has) that would obviate the need for any administrative action for now, and simply seems a better solution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept no sanctions. I have done nothing wrong. If someone accuses me of something show me the diffs. Mitsube (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has now moved on to the main reincarnation article, where he is reverting away. He removed the mention of reincarnation research from the intro, back to Cenarium's version from a few days ago. And he insulted religions believers in his edit summary at the same time. This is why I felt a block was needed. Mitsube (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected two months. Originally I had a plan for resolving this, but a number of admins have commented and I don't think my first plan has enough support for me to pursue it. Until 20 March there was a reasonably effective process working on the talk page, and both sides of the dispute were trying to make progress through negotiation. ScienceApologist's arrival on the scene at 23:16 on 24 March seemed to cause a general breakdown, and for the next 24 hours both sides behaved badly. Full protection will allow changes to be processed through {{editprotected}}, which will force discussion before edits are made. As usual, my protection is open to review at WP:AN. Thanks for the comments that people have made here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Artefactual reported by User:Lanternix (Result: no action)

Page: Copt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Artefactual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

in my defense, i would like to say that User:Lanternix is exhibiting in my opinion religious bias in his re-edits of the article Copt. all i have been asking him to allow is that the percentage of copts be written as "6-20%" since the actual percentages can not be determined from the present facts espoused by all parties. some parties argue a lower range, while others argue a higher percentage range. however, all parties can also reference there percentages to reliable sources (as well as more biased sources). therefore, i have sought the middle-ground by arguing for the complete percentage range to be included for the meantime- untill an undisputable source can be produced. once again, i believe User:Lanternix is making an unneccessarily large comotion over an issue that should have been easily resolved- if the objective spirit of wikipedians had been employed.Artefactual (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) i would also like to say that i am still learning the ins-and-outs of wikipedia policy. i honestly had no knowledge of this 3 edit rule thing- which i am still trying to fully understand. sorry for transgressing wiki procedure.Artefactual (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Note For admins editor has actually self-reverted, though hasn't used an appropriate edit summary and is seeking to use WP:DR to sort the problem. Seems a genuine misunderstanding but may be worth a look at the other party for gaming the system? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• No action. Both have edit-warred. Artefactual has self-reverted, which makes this dispute no longer live with respect to him. Please use the procedure described at WP:DR in the future. Lanternix has since been blocked for another edit war. There is accordingly no further action required.  Sandstein  17:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Birdlover777 reported by User:Snowmanradio (Result: User blocked for 48 hrs)

Page: Osprey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Birdlover777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has changed a lot of other pages that will need checking, some after warning. All edits now corrected by at least 3 editors. An administrator has now blocked the user for 48 hrs probably without seeing this page. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Fanoftheworld reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: indef)

Page: Tori Amos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Fanoftheworld is an account with a history of promotional edits for Steinway, as well as removing references to competitors brands. Previously blocked three times for similar behavior. This is just another case of that, where the editor ignores consesus and/or references. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as an advertisement-only account. A review of recent contributions reveals that Fanoftheworld is an account that is, at least recently, almost solely dedicated to promoting Steinway & Sons and reducing the visibility of their competitors' products in Misplaced Pages. He does so notably by edit-warring with others about the inclusion of brand names in articles. As Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Fanoftheworld shows, this is not a new problem. Fanoftheworld is therefore indefinitely blocked.  Sandstein  17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rkitko reported by User:Snek01 (Result: No action)

Page: Drosera spatulata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rkitko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result - No action. Nobody has written anything about this dispute on the article's talk page, and I don't see that you gave a 3RR warning to the other party. (See instructions at the head of this noticeboard). If you have an article dispute, try to work it out through discussion before reporting here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Fanoftheworld reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: indef)

Page: Lang Lang (pianist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fanoftheworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Fanoftheworld is an account with a history of promotional edits for Steinway, as well as removing references to competitors brands. Previously blocked three times for similar behavior. This is just another case of that, where the editor ignores consesus and/or references. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indef-blocked. As above.  Sandstein  17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:82.12.115.218 reported by User:VernoWhitney (Result: Semi)

Page: Angus MacNeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 82.12.115.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: NONE

I have repeatedly asked the user to discuss on the talk page, but the only communication they have provided is via edit summaries and warning other users involved.

Comments:

Even after different wording has been found, the editor is insisting upon keeping it a certain way, again without talk page discussion:

I admit I have gotten too involved in this edit war, but I am now bowing out of the situation and removing the page from my watchlist in order to allow cooler heads to come to a consensus on the page. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. The IP is warring to add information about a sex scandal to the article. Though the info is referenced, the wording the IP has used risks being defamatory, per WP:BLP. Suggest that the IP get consensus on the Talk page or at WP:BLP/N as to the correct form in which this could be worded. If that is done, the protection could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )

Page: Anna Kendrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Corey Haim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sandra Bullock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Penélope Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Diane Kruger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: RfC at WT:ACTOR, not closed, still open.

Comments: There is a RfC open at WT:ACTOR concerning the use of color table headings, spearheaded by the editor I am reporting. He was incivil to another editor in that discussion and when she responded to it, he began going about removing the color and font coding, which has been used as a matter of practice on actor articles. The RfC has not been closed. Thge first edits he made were hidden under deceptive edit summaries of "tidy" and continues to hide his edits under deceptive summaries. When I reverted his first edits on this, he posted an ultimatum to me to answer questions on WT:ACTOR if I wanted him to stop. When he reached the 3rd revert on the Anna Kendrick, I warned him about 3RR. He did the same to Corey Haim. I noted in reverting that there was no consensus to remove the coding, which again was used as a matter of practice. He then went to WT:ACTOR to move to close the RfC and began removing this from the other articles. He didn't directly violate 3RR on the Kendrick article, but after being warned, he proceeded to remove it on other articles. I believe this violates the spirit of 3RR as he forges on to remove it. The discussion is not closed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not like I've not tried to discuss this with WHL; there's 129 kilobytes of discussion at WT:ACTOR about this, most of it not to her liking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the RfC is still open and this removal continued even after being warned about 3RR. It isn't required that the reverts all occur on the same page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You've reverted just as much (or more) than JM has. Seems a bit odd that you're reporting him, since logically if any action were taken, it would affect you as well, or perhaps you solely...J.delanoy_adds 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A huge percentage of WHL's edits are reverts. Most of the diffs to my editing on offer above are not reverts at all; they're just edits she doesn't like. The discussion is thataway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Jack Merridew has made snarky comments about my edits. I do vandal patrol a great deal of the time, yet he continues to speculate about the percentages regarding my edits. And for the record, I stopped after I saw the wholesale manner in which he was approaching this. I revert it twice on three articles, so no, I did not revert it as much or more than he did and I'm not sure where you're getting that "as much or more" from. And Jack, when you've reverted the same thing over and over on 7 different articles, for something that is still under discussion, it's reverts. You'll find lots of other reverts in my contributions, but you won't find pointy edits, the object of which are still under discussion, hidden under false edit summaries like "tidy". Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack shouldn't have started it to begin with. Bait, much? —Mike Allen 06:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• nb: User:Pinkadelica has joined-in. . Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly did "join in" because Heidi Montag is on my watchlist. After the deceptive "tidy ;)" edit summary, I checked your contributors to see if you did your idea of "tidying" on other articles and lo and behold! As MikeAllen has stated, you shouldn't have started this crusade to begin with. There's no consensus for theses changes that you and you alone are pushing for, and certainly not after that bait and switch joke of an RfC you began on WT:ACTOR. If you hadn't noticed, I didn't revert your other edits because it's obvious you're playing a game. I haven't earned a block yet and I'm not about to get one because you're bored and want to play games. Pinkadelica 07:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Anna Kendrick page continues to ping-pong back and forth. That RfC needs review and a close by an uninvolved admin. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Historiographer reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24h)

Page: South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Historiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the user has already been blocked for edit warring on this article, so is fully aware of the rules and consequences.

Note: I (uninvolved) gave a warning Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

The above editor seems to be quite keen on removing the word "Takeshima" from the article, the editor has been reverted twice by myself and has been reverted by another editor - I would prefer for this to be dealt with here, than see yet another long drawn out edit war.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h.  Sandstein  16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:80.47.85.227 reported by User:Pigsonthewing (Result: Semi & blocked)

Page: Andrew Glover (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 80.47.85.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk page and edit summaries,

Semi-protected by Black Kite. Minimac (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• And IP blocked for other reasons than the edit-warring. Black Kite 21:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Planeshift rpg reported by Tuxide (talk) (Result: Both editors blocked - Vianello (Talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

• Three-revert rule violation on

PlaneShift (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Planeshift rpg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 21:54, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352410003 by SpigotMap (talk) Number of quests are not a news but a fact.")
2. 22:00, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352411772 by SpigotMap (talk) Being sorry is of no help. I understand you are a vandal of wikipedia, you will not win.")
3. 23:13, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352421271 by SpigotMap (talk) You are not a trusted user. See your talk page. you cannot edit this page anymore.")
4. 23:32, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352425118 by 72.40.145.111 (talk)")
5. 23:52, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 352428126 by 72.40.145.111 (talk) Stop vandalizing the page.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

I (uninvolved) gave him three NPA warnings . Also, after reading these comments from him I didn't think it would be constructive to bring it up on the talk page. This is clearly an "I don't like the guy" thing, not a content issue. Tuxide (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both SpigotMap and the reported user have violated 3RR in this case (at different times). A block has been passed down for both. - Vianello (Talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mkdw reported by User:Philly jawn (Result: no action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Joseph Rowbottom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 02:42, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352453395 by Philly jawn
2. 03:00, 28 March 2010 RV: Please follow wikipedia procedures as described in the A7 as well as the process to contest maintenance tags rather than assuming bad faith and reverting these changes
3. 03:07, 28 March 2010 restoring the maintenance tags - please don't remove them unless you can assert that the concerns have been resolved

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Edit warring and bad faith in editing. There has been an article about Joseph Rowbottom that has existed for about nine months. Rowbottoms were spontaneous gatherings where some mayhem ensued. I added this to the article on flash mobs, User:Mkdw and I traded reversions. Mkdw just upped the ante by nominating the first article for speedy deletion. In an act of retribution, Mkdw just put a warning on my talk page ... after putting the speedy tag back on the article. Would someone please intervene? Philly jawn (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• No action. The listed diffs do not exceed WP:3RR, the edit war is presumably over now that the article is at AfD and you, Philly jawn, have made roughly the same number of reverts as Mkdw, but also removed deletion tags out of process and assumed bad faith, so if I were you I would not invite admins to take a closer look at this.  Sandstein  06:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued Additions to 1994 by User:Barneystimpleton

User:Barneystimpleton reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: No violation)

Page: 1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Barneystimpleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor was previously blocked for the same addition to the same article. ttonyb (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting because there is no ACTUAL reason why a very notable person should be removed. I checked most of the other ones. The "10 foreign articles" thing did not apply. Barneystimpleton (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A policy being broken in one place does not make it acceptable to break it (and 3RR) in others. Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article." WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is also relevant, even if we're talking list items and not articles. - Vianello (Talk) 04:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Only three reversions made on this particular spree, eight days since the previous one, and the user has now desisted. If another administrator still feels this qualifies sufficiently as edit warring despite that, they may overturn my judgment on this if they see fit. - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:71.74.95.254 / User:Nonrevisionis reported by User:Newross (Result: )

Page: Saul Alinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.74.95.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Nonrevisionis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:00, 25 March 2010

1. 23:16, 25 March 2010 (edit summary: )
2. 19:58, 26 March 2010 (edit summary: )
3. 15:20, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: )
4. 22:14, 27 March 2010 (edit summary: )
5. 01:01, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352423812 by Ja 62 (talk) based on his own text (quoted), many DID/DO believe him to be communist)
6. 12:58, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
7. 17:16, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: Undid revision 352556521 by Newross (talk) Right, I read that he is not a Marxist - I am stating a fact due to his writings as quoted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:52, 28 March 2010 (71.74.95.254)
2. 19:54, 28 March 2010 (Nonrevisionis)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:27, 28 March 2010 (User talk:Newross#Saul Alinsky Quote)
2. 16:14, 28 March 2010 (Talk:Saul Alinsky#Not a Marxist)

Comments:
Repeated addition by 71.74.95.254/Nonrevisionis of a partial quote from Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals deliberately taken out-of-context to reverse its meaning and combined with the uninformed, unsubstantiated personal opinion of 71.74.95.254/Nonrevisionis. Newross (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DecZXZ reported by User:Dudesleeper (Result: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Page: Ewood Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DecZXZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 28 March 2010

1. 19:52, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
2. 20:27, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
3. 20:56, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )
4. 21:04, 28 March 2010 (edit summary: )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:24, 28 March 2010

Talk:Ewood_Park#Neutrality and points of view

Comments:
Warned by a couple of users, and has now reverted for fourth time, despite having WP:3RR brought to his attention. He doesn't seem to be checking diffs, because my last edit wasn't connected to the edit war. - Dudesleeper talk 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: )

Page: ] (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor falling back on old issue. I have cleaned out the addition of blank parameters from the citations he has added, removed use of excessive subtitles from old newspaper articles and removed excessive quotes from cites that basically copy and paste every single bit of content from the newspaper link. He has repeated use undo to eliminate my clean-up and has hidden his actions beneath deceptive edit summaries that do not mention his reverts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring